Too many psychiatric diagnoses for children: an epidemic of labels<\/a>
Child in Mind
<\/a> by Claudia Gold
June 12, 2013<\/div>\n
Child in Mind
<\/a> by Claudia Gold
June 12, 2013<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Allen Frances, professor of child psychiatry at Duke University and chair of the DSM IV<\/a> [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] task force hit the nail on the head in a recent commentary "Why So Many Epidemics of Childhood Mental Disorders?<\/a>" in the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. Because he makes his argument so clearly and persuasively [and the full article is only available to those who subscribe to the journal] I will quote it at length.<\/div>\n
- \n
Since the publication of DSM-IV in 1994, the rates of 3 mental disorders have skyrocketed: attention deficit disorder [ADD] tripled, autism increased by 20-fold, and childhood bipolar disorder by 40-fold. It is no accident that diagnostic inflation has focused on the mental disorders of children and teenagers. These are inherently difficult to diagnose accurately because youngsters have a short track record; are in developmental flux that makes presentations transient and unstable; are sensitive to family, peer, and school stresses; and may be using drugs. If ever diagnosis should be conservative, it should be in kids. Instead, we have experienced an unprecedented diagnostic exuberance encouraged in part by DSM-IV, but mostly stimulated by the powerful external forces of drug company marketing and the close coupling of school services to a diagnosis of mental disorder.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
He gives the example of ADHD, describing how the revisions to DSM IV had anticipated a jump in diagnoses in girls with the additon of an "inattentive" subtype. But in fact there was an unexpected tripling of ADHD rates and parallel increase in use of psychiatric medication. He writes:<\/div>\n
- \n
Three years after DSM-IV was published, drug companies introduced new and expensive on-patent drugs that provided the incentive and resources for an aggressive marketing campaign to psychiatrists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Simultaneously, successful drug company lobbying gave them unrestricted freedom to advertise directly to consumers. Parents and teachers were inundated with the message that ADD was terribly underdiagnosed and easily treated with a pill. Sales of ADD drugs ballooned to an astounding $7 billion.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
He then moves on to bipolar disorder:<\/div>\n
- \n
Childhood bipolar disorder is an even more chilling case. DSM-IV had wisely rejected a proposal that there be a separate and much looser definition of bipolar disorder in children. The argument for inclusion rested on the unreplicated findings of just 1 [albeit very influential] research group suggesting that kids present a developmentally different prodromal form of bipolar disorder characterized by ambient irritability, impulsivity, and temper outbursts, rather than the typical cyclical mood swings of adults. Rejection by DSM-IV did not stop charismatic thought leaders [who were heavily financed by drug companies] from spreading the gospel of childhood bipolar disorder. The 40-fold increase in rates was accompanied by an increase in antipsychotic spending up to $18.2 billion in 2011. These drugs frequently cause massive weight gain in children. The overuse of antipsychotics in kids was not deterred by the fact that childhood obesity is an important risk factor for diabetes and heart disease. Drug companies have received billion dollar fines for off-label marketing to kids, but these pale in comparison to the enormous revenues. Of note, the inappropriate use of antipsychotics is most pronounced among children who are economically disadvantaged.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
He then accurately depicts the link between the rise in diagnoses of autism with the fact that a diagnosis is needed for a child to receive appropriate services:<\/div>\n
- \n
The introduction of Asperger’s by DSM-IV was expected to result in a 3- to 4-fold increase rates of autism. Severe classic autism had an unmistakable presentation with rates lower than 1 per 2000. Asperger’s blends imperceptibly into normal eccentricity, and the rates of autism are now reported at 1 per 88 in the United States and 1 in 38 in Korea. Theories connecting the increase in prevalence to vaccination have been discredited. Instead, the rates have grown so rapidly because a diagnosis of autism is required to allow a child access to greatly enhanced school services. About half the youngsters who now receive the diagnosis do not really meet the DSM-IV criteria when these are carefully applied. And follow-up studies finding that half the kids no longer meet criteria also confirm that diagnostic inflation is rampant. Eligibility for school services should be decoupled from an unreliable clinical diagnosis and instead be based on educational need.<\/div>\n<\/ul>\n
The challenge, and Frances does acknowledge this fact, is to avoid over-diagnosis while at the same time not undertreating those who need help. Most of the children who receive these labels, and their families, are struggling in significant ways. They do need help, and sometimes lots of it. The issue is inextricably linked with the need to "name" the problem, a need comes in part from both clinicians and parents, who may feel more of a sense of control if what they are struggling with has a name, and also insurance companies who require a diagnosis for reimbursement of services…<\/div>\n
<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
My reason for posting this article by Dr. Allen Frances [which is as clear and persuasive as Dr. Gold says] by proxy is that I thought Dr. Gold’s commentary was value added – a twofer. Working in clinics in rural Appalachia, I’ve seen two sides to the ADHD story. In a Child clinic, I saw any number of kids whose parents or teachers were pushing for treatment with stimulants when the real problems were in another domain, usually behavioral disorders. And I saw a number of kids with ADHD proper for whom treatment was important. But in the adult clinics, I’ve seen the other side of the coin – people whose lives were made unnecessarily complicated by growing up in an area and an era where nobody had ever heard of ADHD. I jokingly call the patients I’m talking about "telescopic ADHD<\/font><\/strong>" – meaning it can be diagnosed through a telescope it’s so obvious. And their life histories speak to the very real problems of living with the condition untreated. ADHD is a double-edged story of both over- and<\/u> under-diagnosis, over- and under- treatment. <\/div>\n
From my perspective, the DSM-IV did the best it could do with the whole issue of the Bipolar Child craziness. I lay the responsibility for that one not on the DSM-IV but on Drs. Biederman and Wozniak at Harvard, the pharmaceutical sponsors, but mostly on the the community of child psychiatrists who accepted and promulgated the idea with no solid evidence base. Like "Treatment Resistant Depression," the "Bipolar Child" was a creation of the psychopharmacology era itself – a rationalization for the inappropriate use of powerful and dangerous medication for behavior control.<\/p>\n
As much as I always appreciate Dr. Frances’ perspective, it was Dr. Gold’s final paragraph that I really wanted to highlight. The thing I personally hate the most about modern psychiatry is that it so simplifies everything – diagnosis, treatment, people, relationships, histories, struggles, even the brain – everything. I have no idea who the Ed Tronick she mentions is, but I like him by proxy. I came to psychiatry in order to "embrace complexity," because I could see that there was nothing at all simple about any case I saw of mental illness. But psychiatry has tried to go dumb on me. Viva complexity!<\/div>\n
\nPsychiatric labels, be it "ADHD" "bipolar disorder" or "autism," are artificial constructs that provide a false sense of simplicity. When I see a child and family in consultation, the aim of the work is to take the time to listen to the story and understand where, and it may be in several places, the "problem" actually lies. In order to help these children and families in a meaningful way, we need to be able to, in the words of one of my mentors Ed Tronick, "embrace complexity."<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
![](\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/hat-tip.gif\")
<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"